DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on November 26, 2025. Claims 1, 6-7, 11, 14, and 17 are amended; claims 2-3 are canceled; claims 25-27 are new.
The applicant contends that the cited prior art does not disclose the new material, recited by each independent claim, stipulating a nickel-phosphorus coating, whereby the atomic weight percent of the latter is between 4.4 to 13.9 percent (pp. 10-20).
In response, the examiner has withdrawn the previous 103 rejections and submitted new art to the record, thereby mooting the presented arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 6-20, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalita et al., US 2019/0323127.
Claims 1, 11-12, 15-16, 18-19: Kalita discloses a substrate processing apparatus (Fig. 3), comprising:
A first set of inner surfaces that define a plasma forming region;
Wherein the apparatus is configured to form a plasma within the plasma forming region [0048];
A second set of inner surfaces that define a gas supply region (311);
Wherein the apparatus is configured to supply process gas from the gas supply region to the plasma forming region;
A third set of inner surfaces that define a gas mixing region;
Wherein the apparatus is configured to form an etchant in the gas mixing region;
A fourth set of inner surfaces that define a substrate processing region (360);
Wherein the apparatus is configured to process a substrate (355) within said processing region [0044];
A showerhead (347) between the gas mixing region and the substrate processing region configured to supply the etchant to the substrate processing region [0053];
A coating layer covering a surface of the showerhead including nickel and phosphorus [0008, 0053];
A heater (339) configured to control a surface temperature of the showerhead [0052];
A gas distribution plate (315) disposed above the showerhead;
Wherein the gas distribution plate is an electrode plate configured to receive power for plasma generation [0047-48];
A plate coating layer covering a surface of the gas distribution plate including nickel and phosphorus [0008, 0047].
Kalita further discloses a mass percentage of phosphorus between 3 and 16 percent, which yields a range of atomic weight between 1 and 9 percent [0009]. Clearly, then, Kalita discloses several values of phosphorus which reside within the claimed range.
Continuing, Kalita uses the technique of electroless plating to apply the coating layer, whereby the coating may be “included on all surfaces of the component” [0060]. The examiner understands this disclosure to read upon the claim 11 requirement that the coating be formed on the shower head’s “upper surface.”
Lastly, with reference to Figure 3, Kalita does not explicitly assert that every depicted faceplate comprises the nickel-phosphorus admixture. In several instances, Kalita merely refers to “nickel plating.” However, given the syntax of claim 5, for instance, which stipulates that “the nickel layer…consists of nickel and phosphorus,” one of ordinary skill would understand the category of “nickel plating” to also encompass the phosphorus admixture, whereby applying the phosphorus component to the plurality of faceplates would have been an obvious way of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way.
Claims 4, 10, 13: The type of gas supplied is a matter of intended use, where the prior art must merely demonstrate the structural capacity to provide the claimed compound – a recitation concerning the manner in which a claimed apparatus is to be employed does not differentiate the apparatus from prior art satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham 2, USPQ2D 1647). It is the Office’s position that Kalita’s apparatus can receive the supply of a fluorine-containing compound.
Claims 6-7: Because the shower head and gas distribution plate occupy different vertical positions, the units will encounter different percentages of fluorine atoms which, in turn, will alter the balance of phosphorus as processing proceeds, even given identical initial conditions.
Claim 8: As shown by Figure 3, Kalita surrounds the processing region with a process chamber (303). It would have been further obvious to coat the inner surface of the process chamber with the aforesaid nickel-phosphorous compound to increase the probability of recombination.
Claim 9: The operator can control the heater to generate a temperature within the claimed range – it has been held that claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959)).
Claim 14: Kalita’s metal element is nickel and, by definition, the binding energy between nickel and phosphorus is less than that between nickel and fluorine.
Claim 17: The rejection of claim 1, above, substantially addresses these limitations. In addition, Kalita provides a process chamber (303) defining a plasma processing space, a gas supply (301) configured to supply gas into the chamber, a power supply (319) configured to form a plasma, and a substrate support member (365) configured to bear a substrate (355) (Fig. 3).
Claim 20: Kalita connects two vacuum pumps (265, 266) to the process chamber to draw gas therefrom ([0037]; Fig. 2).
Claims 25-27: Kalita contemplates coating every shower head and faceplate with the nickel-phosphorus coating layer [0008].
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Babayan et al., US 2002/0129902. Babayan discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising a process chamber (30), a gas supply (32), a power supply (101) configured to form a plasma, a substrate support (22), as well as a gas distribution plate (26) and a subjacent showerhead (16) ([0042]; Fig. 1).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, can be reached at 571 272 1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 273 8300.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716